Range Increments

[Legildur]

I think that you are just being difficult again Hyp

But I'll certainly try to support my 'assertions'.

From the SRD (only resource available to me at this moment), under Tactical Movement:

Measuring Distance
Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.

Another quote exists in the PHB (can't find it in the 3.5 SRD that creatures wielding reach weapons (and creatures with reach) threaten 2 squares all around them (including the 2 diagonals, which is listed as an exception to the rule about 2 diagonals being 15ft).

Once again from the SRD, this time under Cover:

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square....

And again from the SRD, this time under Concealment:

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square.......

These last 2 quotes clearly relate to those specific conditions under combat modifiers. In no way are they used for calculating distance between squares. Otherwise, you could 'hide' in a corner of your square and be out of 'reach' from the medium-sized opponent in the adjacent square, thereby negating AOOs.

Distance is measured from centre of squares. Using the corners is only a mechanism for determing cover and concealment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the SRD (only resource available to me at this moment), under Tactical Movement:

Exactly. That's how you measure distance for tactical movement... which makes sense, since you're moving from the centre of your square to the centre of another square.

These last 2 quotes clearly relate to those specific conditions under combat modifiers. In no way are they used for calculating distance between squares. Otherwise, you could 'hide' in a corner of your square and be out of 'reach' from the medium-sized opponent in the adjacent square, thereby negating AOOs.

Except that while your ranged attack originates from the corner, you are still in the centre.

What's the relevance of measuring the distance from the centre if it's not where the attack is coming from? And how can the attack be coming from the centre if it doesn't take into account cover that exists on a line from centre-to-centre?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Except that while your ranged attack originates from the corner, you are still in the centre.

And absolutely nowhere does it specify that ranged attacks originate from a corner. This could be implied from the cover rules, but it does not say it at any time.

The cover and concealment rules provide an abstract from reality that converts reasonably into useable rules.

I recognise that it is a bit artificial, but your assumption would lead to further complication around determining distance for ranged attacks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And absolutely nowhere does it specify that ranged attacks originate from a corner. This could be implied from the cover rules, but it does not say it at any time.

Inferred.

Anyway - no, it doesn't specify that. Neither does it specify that they originate from the centre. Thus, inference is all we have.

We can either assume that ranged attacks originate in the centre, and measure accordingly... in which case the cover and concealment rules make no sense.

Or we can assume that they originate from a corner, and measure accordingly... which fits with the cover and concealment rules just fine.

To put it another way - if ranged attacks are only ever measured by squares in 5' increments, why do the rules reference a shortbow fired at a target at a range of 59 feet?

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Hyp, the ranged attacks around a corner (for example) originate at the center of your square from one side attached to the corner.

 

[Legildur]

I think that the 59ft short bow example is simply there to demonstrate that range increment penalties take effect at the distance indicated for the range increment of the weapon used.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, the ranged attacks around a corner (for example) originate at the center of your square from one side attached to the corner.

Doesn't work. I can set up a situation where a line drawn from the centre of the square passes through a square with cover, while a line drawn from the corner does not.

[color=#dddddd]-------
|......#[/color][color=red]h[/color][color=#dddddd]##
|......####
|....[/color][color=white][b]@[/b][/color][color=#dddddd]|
|.....|
|.....|
-------[/color]

Taking a shot at the dwarf - line drawn from the centre, dwarf has cover. Drawn from the NW corner - no cover. By the rules, in this situation, the shot does not suffer a cover penalty...

... which means it can't be coming from the centre.

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Hyp, center of the side, not center of the square.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, center of the side, not center of the square.

I'm not sure where you find any support for that...

... but if you can reference it, it would mean that a creature two squares away is only 7.5 away for a ranged attack, so it's still within one 10' range increment...

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm not sure where you find any support for that...

... but if you can reference it, it would mean that a creature two squares away is only 7.5 away for a ranged attack, so it's still within one 10' range increment...

-Hyp.

I'm finding it from inference and pragmatism. It works, therefore it's good. FWIW, I've always ruled that someone 2 squares away is at 10' and therefore within the first 10' range increment.